“For our area and probably for our farm, probably 20, 25% prevent plant,” he told VOA at the 2019 Farm Progress Show in Decatur, Illinois. “Then there were also failed acres later on that were under water or whatever reason, that’s another 10%.”

Raben admits the weather is one of the great variables that no one can control. But human actions are playing a big role in other factors making life more difficult for American farmers, including a trade war with China and delays in the approval of a new trade agreement with the country’s northern and southern neighbors.

“I knew there was going to be adjustments,” Raben said of President Donald Trump’s escalating exchange of tariffs with China. “But I think I personally, I would not have moved into it that quickly, and wouldn’t have had so many different entities of trade problems. I would have done them one at a time and work through it.”

While the biennial Farm Progress Show in Illinois is an opportunity for farmers like Raben to learn about the latest trends in the agriculture industry, it’s also an opportunity to raise their voices in the national debate over international trade.

“It’s important for farmers in Illinois to understand how important the export markets are to their profitability. We export more corn out of this state than any other state does,” explained Tricia Braid with the Illinois Corn Growers Association, whose exhibit at this year’s show stressed the importance of a pending trade agreement among the United States, Mexico and Canada (USMCA).

“In the decade that I’ve been working with the corn growers, this is the first time this action at the Farm Progress Show has focused on trade,” she said.

“We have a call-to-action campaign, and we are using a phone-based system” to help farmers get their message directly to the country’s lawmakers. “When they sign up then, they will be able to be directly contacted to their members of Congress and their senators to ask them to ratify the USMCA as soon as they come back from the August recess.”

Key points on USMCA

Last year, after many months of negotiation, the United States reached an agreement with Mexico and Canada — its two biggest trading partners — to replace the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

The Trump administration argues that USMCA is “more balanced and reciprocal” than its predecessor, but Congress has been slow to ratify the agreement, frustrating U.S. farmers looking for guaranteed markets and some price stabilization for their crops.

“Some of the frustration is anchored in the fact that it’s very political in nature right now,” Braid said.

“I believe today if it was put before the floor of the House [of Representatives], it would get a majority of both caucuses, it’s a great agreement and very much needed for the U.S,” said Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, speaking with reporters during a visit to the Farm Progress Show.

“It is a good agreement. There doesn’t need to be major tweaking. Congress has to ratify this … but it is the speaker of the House that has to introduce that.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said members of her Democratic Party caucus favor the deal in principle but want to see changes in certain areas, including labor rights and environmental protections, before bringing it to a vote. Analysts say passage will become even more difficult as next year’s presidential and congressional elections draw closer.

Uncertainty over the pact is adding to the uncertainty farmers face in a season many say is already filled with too much of it.

“To me, it’s a no-brainer,” said Raben, who blames Congress, not the Trump administration, for the lack of an agreement, and says other buyers such as China are looking at the USMCA as an example of U.S. trade reliability.

“It should have already been passed. If it wasn’t for politics, it would have been passed.”

Neither the USMCA impasse nor Trump’s trade war with China, which has cut deeply into agricultural exports, has diminished Raben’s support for the Trump administration’s long-term goals, and a Farm Futures summer survey shows he isn’t alone. Despite the current hardships, 67 percent of the farmers surveyed said they will vote to re-elect President Trump next year.

“I think he’s doing what is right,” Raben said. “I don’t have the answer on how to get it done quicker.”

By Barbara Wesel (DW) - Emmanuel Macron proved himself to be a master of diplomacy at this year’s G7 by outmaneuvering the US President on Iran. In doing so, he’s also taken over as Europe’s foreign policy leader, says DW’s Barbara Wesel.

The French president invested an enormous amount of preparation time and political capital so that this year’s G7 summit would not turn into an all-round debacle and total failure. He invited additional guests and brought other topics to the table to shake up the meeting’s rigid format.

Above all else, Emmanuel Macron did not want to be seen as a failure himself — and with some effort, he managed to do that.

Bold move on Iran crisis

Macron actually managed to outmaneuver the stubborn and contrarian US president on Iran. That’s no small feat considering Donald Trump once again proved to be a bad guest who enjoyed misleading the press and bystanders — particularly on trade policy.

DW’s senior European correspondent Barbara Wesel

At the same time, Trump complained about the media reporting on tensions at the summit. Any additional words written about the U-turns, the irresponsibility and distortions from Trump’s side would be a waste. He simply behaved as he always does.

Trump then reacted angrily and emphasized that the only correct strategy is the US’ hard-line approach. The French president didn’t allow himself to be intimidated, instead, meeting personally with Zarif to see whether there could be diplomatic leeway for new solutions.

There’s not much hope there, but in a situation where a military conflict is threatening to erupt in the background, every effort for a peaceful resolution is welcome. That also goes for the European signatories of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that the US president pulled out of with a bang last year.

Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif arrives at G7 summit

Carrot-and-stick approach for populists

Macron also took the right approach in tackling the fires in the Amazon rainforest. He threatened Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro by refusing to ratify the EU-Mercosur trade agreement if Bolsonaro did not stop people from igniting fires in the forest known as the Earth’s green lungs.

At the summit, he also persuaded other participants to promise Brazil and its neighboring countries practical aid to help put out the fires and assist in reforestation.

The French president showed that he has the right methods to deal with populists and anti-democrats. He speaks with everyone, but also draws hard lines. Bolsonaro meanwhile proved that the carrot-and-stick approach works, since he gave in and sent the military to extinguish the fires.

In order to persuade the Brazilian leader to adopt a more responsible environmental policy, much more pressure will be needed. In order to achieve this, the EU, environmental organizations and ultimately consumers have a role to play if it comes to boycotting Brazilian products.

The US was furious that Macron even put the topic of climate change and the Amazonian fires on the agenda at all. They felt backed into a corner, diplomats said. Washington once again showed that it acts completely irresponsibly when it comes to climate policy and has to be led along by the other G7 countries.

Europe’s new leading figure

The French president showed that he is a political craftsman who wants to make himself a leading figure in Europe. From a digital tax to climate policy, many important initiatives are coming from Paris.

Germany, on the other hand, is looking increasingly bad. It appears the political Götterdämmerung in Berlin has also crippled Chancellor Angela Merkel’s experience and desire to lead.

Her weakness is leading to a passing of the baton in the EU. Macron has already pulled the strings when it came to the selection of the new European Commission president. He is on his way to becoming Europe’s new strong man, but he has to be careful not to overextend himself or lose his feet.

After this year’s difficult G7 summit, though, you have the feeling that you’re in good hands with Macron.

Moon landing by Americans on 20 July 1969 (Historic public domain photo – for education only)

By John J. Metzler - Bondville, VT — For those of us of a certain age, we vividly remember where we were on July 20, 1969 the date of America’s successful Lunar landing.

On a cool July southern Vermont evening my parents and I visited friends to watch what was expected to be a live transmission from the Moon! So on a flickering black and white TV, they were able to pull in WBZ from Boston, and receive what even then we knew would be history.

America’s iconic space program was steeped in lore and legend but actually, in the beginning, had more to do with keeping up with the Soviets than actually exploring the huge frontiers of Outer Space.

We all know the story; the Soviets launched the Sputnik satellite which jolted American complacency and concentrated our attention on what later would be called the space race. By 1961, the Soviets had sent a man into space. In 1962 President John F. Kennedy pledged, “We choose to go to the Moon!”

Actually, his impulse was more political than scientific. A conversation, released by the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library reveals his true motivation to beat the Soviet Union; “In my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because we hope to beat them,” he said, “and demonstrate that starting behind, as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them.”

NASA became THE cutting edge and popular government agency if there ever was one. A whole generation was inspired by its vision the daring, and the human and technological achievements of the Space Program. Over 400,000 people worked in the program and NASA had an unquestioned budget of $25 billion, ($175 billion in today’s numbers!)

Think about it; from never having had an astronaut fly in outer space until 1961, a scientific program fast tracked an extraordinary mobilization which by 1969 operated multi-manned missions on the cusp of reaching and landing on the Moon.

For NASA, getting a man to the Moon was part of a long, arduous and dangerous series of space missions. In May 1961, Alan Shepherd, from New Hampshire, became the first American in Space. He was followed by John Glenn’s Mercury Mission in 1962 where he became the first man to orbit the earth.

The storied Apollo Missions were the stepping stones. The first step was a disaster; the terrible 1967 Apollo 1 launch pad ground accident which saw the deaths of three astronauts. Two lunar orbit and return missions preceded the Apollo 11 landing mission.

Part of the challenge was getting Astronauts to the Moon but also back safely.

Interestingly and easily forgotten was Apollo 12, just months later in November of 1969 where astronauts again landed on the Lunar surface, this time in the Ocean of Storms region.

Then there was Apollo 13, the aborted and nearly disastrous mission in April 1970 and the subject of a thrilling movie. All told Apollo carried out four more successful landing missions until December 1972.

Over that period 12 American astronauts landed and walked on the Moon. The Apollo program had amazing ground support teams coordinated by NASA Flight Director Gene Krantz.

The Moon landing was the high point of a tumultuous summer where domestic discord over the Vietnam war tore apart the nation’s fabric. Casualties were mounting, the anti-war movement was seething, and the so-called Woodstock generation partied while American kids from Brooklyn, Biloxi and Baltimore were fighting and dying in the Mekong Delta.

So where do we go from here? Back to the Moon! During the Obama Administration, NASA suffered from neglect of manned space flight programs and actually outsourced some launches to Russia! Addressing the National Space Council, Vice President Mike Pence affirmed it’s now official policy to return American astronauts to the Moon by 2024, thus putting the U.S. back in the game.

Late that Sunday evening and amid lots of static and waiting which seemed forever before the astronauts left the Lunar capsule, there was the Main Event. Leaving the capsule, with the immortal words “This is One small step for Man, and One Giant Leap for Mankind,” Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were walking on the Moon!

Armstrong placed the American flag on the Lunar surface in what known as the Sea of Tranquility. A few people in our group, among then two New York City school Principals, proudly pointed at the little TV set and kept saying “That’s our Flag, That’s an American flag!” We walked home under the starry Vermont sky, and yes, winked at the Moon.

John J. Metzler is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He is the author of Divided Dynamism the Diplomacy of Separated Nations: Germany, Korea, China (2014).

By Ken Bredemeier (VOA News)- U.S. President Donald Trump has found his latest target for acerbic ridicule — a hijab-wearing Muslim newcomer to Congress named Ilhan Omar. She is a Somali refugee but naturalized U.S. citizen whom Trump views as something less than a patriotic red, white and blue American.

Trump railed against the lawmaker Wednesday night at his 2020 re-election campaign rally in North Carolina. He stoked the packed crowd at a college basketball arena with his claims that she is proud of al-Qaida terrorists, blames the U.S. for the political crisis in Venezuela and launches “vicious anti-Semitic screeds.”

FILE – Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, left, looks at a paper held by President Donald Trump about Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., as Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, July 16, 2019.

“Send her back! Send her back!” the frenzied crowd of Trump supporters chanted as he paused to listen for 13 seconds but without responding. It was reminiscent of Trump’s 2016 campaign, when supporters regularly shouted, “Lock her up!” in a call to jail his opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, the former U.S. secretary of state.

Back in Washington on Thursday, the president disavowed the chant against Omar, saying, “I was not happy with it. I disagree with it.”

Still, to Trump, Omar has in short order become a suitable proxy for opposition Democrats trying to oust him next year after a single term in the White House. He singled her out last weekend, along with three other Democratic lawmakers who also are women of color, but unlike Omar, all U.S. citizens by birth. The president said they ought to “go back” to their home countries to “fix” things there before criticizing the U.S.

House condemnation

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives voted to condemn Trump’s remarks as “racist,” but Trump dismissed any contention he is a racist. Instead, he praised the almost unanimous support he won from Republican lawmakers who opposed the resolution, only four of whom voted with Democrats against him.

“These left-wing ideologues see our nation as a force for evil,” Trump said at the rally, describing them as “hate-filled extremists who are constantly trying to tear our country down.”

“They don’t love our country,” he said. “I think, in some cases, they hate our country. You know what? If they don’t love it, tell them to leave it.”

“Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country,” Trump said. “A vote for any Democrat in 2020 is a vote for the rise of radical socialism and the destruction of the American Dream — frankly, the destruction of our country.”

Omar swiftly rebuffed Trump, saying, “We have said this president is racist. We have condemned his racist remarks. I believe he is fascist.”

Now in her late 30s, Omar told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that she, like many refugees, does not have a birth certificate. She is the mother of two daughters and a son, ranging in age from 7 to 15. Since January she has been a congresswoman from Minneapolis, a large city in the U.S. heartland state of Minnesota. Once divorced, she is married to Somali-born Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi, the father of her three children and recently an aide to a Minneapolis City Council member.

She has been a naturalized U.S. citizen for about two decades, after fleeing the civil war in Somalia with her family in 1991 when she was a child. She lived in a Kenyan refugee camp for four years before moving to the U.S. in the mid-1990s. She held several politics-related jobs in Minneapolis in recent years, before winning a seat in the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2016, becoming the first Somali-American Muslim legislator in U.S. history.

Fierce critic

Last year, she won her congressional seat, overwhelming a Republican candidate to fill the seat of a Democratic congressman — Keith Ellison, also a Muslim American — who left it to win election as the state’s attorney general.

Now Omar has become one of Trump’s fiercest critics, regularly attacking his immigrant detention policies at the southern U.S. border with Mexico as immoral and assailing the country’s long-standing support and alliance with Israel, which she says comes at the expense of Palestinians living alongside the Israelis.

More broadly, she has attacked her adopted country, saying it has “failed to live up to its founding ideals,” a place that had disappointed her and so many immigrants, refugees and minorities like her.

Aside from drawing Trump’s attention and his ire, the outspoken Omar has in six-plus months in Congress often rankled her Democratic colleagues, a number of them Jewish and more broadly, regardless of their religion, longtime supporters of Israel.

Earlier this year, the freshman lawmaker made a statement that played off tropes questioning the influence of Jewish money in American politics. Later, she said, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” specifically Israel.

In both instances, the uproar and condemnation from her Democratic colleagues, and many Republican lawmakers as well, was quick and unrelenting. She subsequently apologized to Jewish groups for some of her comments.

Both times, within days, the House of Representatives approved resolutions to indirectly rebuke Omar that condemned anti-Semitism. Neither statement named her, even though some lawmakers wanted to.

‘Go back’ to their countries

Omar, along with three other progressive congresswomen, argued with congressional Democratic leaders over the treatment of migrants at the U.S.-Mexican border. Omar, along with the three others Trump denigrated — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayana Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan — wanted more compassionate control over government actions, and they voted against most Democrats.

Asked about their split with party leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed dismissive, saying the group, collectively known as “the squad,” amounted to only four lawmakers who had rallied no one else to their views demanding more controls on the treatment of migrants.

But after Trump vilified the four with his “go back” to their countries demand, Pelosi led the fight to condemn Trump’s language as racist.

Omar’s comity with her Democratic colleagues, however, could be short-lived.

She is proposing a resolution defending the pro-Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

Ilhan Omar US Congresswoman under the attack 2019 (Courtesy photo for education only)

“We are introducing a resolution … to really speak about the American values that support and believe in our ability to exercise our First Amendment rights [in the U.S. Constitution] in regard to boycotting,” Omar said.

But a competing resolution condemning the BDS movement has wide support in the House and is much more likely to win approval, if any resolution passes.

Even so, Omar remains undaunted, saying, “I am very much driven by the moral clarity that I was sent to govern with, and I’m quite confident that it will withstand pressure.” (Source VOA News)

The talks, according to Putin’s comments carried by the Russian Interfax news agency, would be related to extending the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) which went into force in 2011 after talks between Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama and Russia’s then-president Dmitry Medvedev.

Fears of restarting the nuclear race

The New START limits the number of deployed nuclear warheads, which are ready to use on intercontinental missiles and heavy bomber bases, to 1,550. The treaty also imposes various other restrictions to US and Russia’s nuclear capabilities. It is set to expire in 2021.

According to 2019 data provided by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, both the US and Russia currently have about 1,600 deployed strategic nuclear heads at their disposal. Russia has a total of 6,500 nuclear warheads, compared to 6,185 on the US side.

Russia’s Putin has repeatedly warned that New START expiry date could signal a new nuclear arms race.

IMF on the brink

On Saturday, he refused to give a timeline for the talks and said it was “too early to talk about” the likelihood of getting to an agreement.

Jared Kushner, adviser and son in law for US president Donald J. Trump (Courtesy photo for education only)

Trump’s son-in-law has finally presented his economic plan that envisages prosperity for the Palestinian people. Expectations were high, but political realities are conspicuous by their absence.

Kushner launches Palestinian prosperity plan

The Middle East Economic Plan, dubbed “Peace to Prosperity” is the brainchild of Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump. Its 136-pages read like a glossy magazine, with photos of children walking to school and smiling farmers adorning the document.

At Tuesday’s long-anticipated economic workshop in Manama, Bahrain, Kushner officially presented his plan as the “deal of the century.” The political part is set to follow, but no one actually knows when. It is not expected until after Israeli elections in September.

The first part of the plan outlines combatting corruption, opening up The West Bank and Gaza Strip to regional and global markets and connecting the two with a railway link. Yet Kushner’s proposal does not explain how something that has not happened for years will now materialize.

There are promises to strengthen the private sector and introduce 4G, LTE and 5G mobile networks. The latter doesn’t even exist yet in the US. The West Bank only acquired a 3G network in 2018 because the Israeli government finally allowed it, after many years of waiting.

According to Kushner’s vision, Gaza and the West Bank could, “just like Dubai and Singapore,” benefit from their strategic location to become a regional financial center.

But unlike the Palestinian territories, Dubai and Singapore have airports. The plan, instead, is to expand airports in neighboring Lebanon and Jordan.

‘Empowering the Palestinian People’

Education is another theme in the proposal, which promises online education platforms and international exchanges.

But how Palestinians’ freedom of movement would be expanded and their travel restrictions loosened, remains to be seen. There are generations of people in the Gaza Strip who have never been allowed to leave the territory.

Kushner envisages investments in cultural institutions and a revamping of the health sector. But here too, there has been no indication of how to go about it.

‘Enhancing Palestinian Governance’

The plan concludes with a section devoted to supporting the Palestinian leadership, so that they can strengthen the private sector.

The overall aim is to increase exports and reduce dependency on external donors.

Palestinians on the street skeptical of Bahrain talks

Plea for pledges

At the Bahrain conference, the US called for some $50 billion (€44 billion) in investments over the next 10 years.

Washington’s allies such as Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were in attendance, as well as representatives from Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.

However, Lebanon and Iraq are absent, and Israel was not invited. The Palestinian Authority boycotted the meeting.

Many see the list of attendees as a sign that the US is after big Arab donors. Tarek Baconi, analyst at the Brussels-based Crisis Group, told DW that Kushner’s plan proposes projects that the US would have financed itself in the past. “But it seems their desire is to stay completely out of any form of financing or support for the Palestinians — at least rhetorically,” Baconi said.

Even if funding is promised, the Palestinian leadership and its people have already rejected Kushner’s plan. Mounir el-Jagoub, spokesman for President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah Party, said the plan was an attempt to “kill the political aspirations of the Palestinian people” with money from rich Arab states.

Although the economic plan is only meant to be implemented after a peace plan has been achieved, it is clear that Kushner’s vision does not include an independent Palestinian state.

US officials have already let it be known that the so-called two-state solution, which has been supported by numerous countries worldwide, has been rejected by the president’s son-in-law.

The words “Palestinian state,” “Palestine” or “occupation” are nowhere to be found in the 136-page document. Israel is also only mentioned in connection with border crossings or economic cooperation.

Muriel Asseburg of German Institute for International and Security Affairs noted that neither the occupation of the territories, the restrictions associated with it, nor the blockade of the Gaza Strip, nor the Palestinian political divisions were taken into account.

“The main obstacles to economic development in the Palestinian territories are not addressed,” Asseburg said.

A HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

UN Security Council Resolution 242, 1967

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, passed on November 22, 1967, called for the exchange of land for peace. Since then, many of the attempts to establish peace in the region have referred to 242. The resolution was written in accordance with Chapter VI of the UN Charter, under which resolutions are recommendations, not orders.

Kushner’s plan ‘will not fly’

In Ramallah, people took to the streets to protest the plan. Kushner’s proposals were criticized for focusing primarily on economic development, instead of the political solution. “The idea that economic revival is followed by peace is unrealistic,” Palestinian Finance Minister Shukri Bischara said.

Nils Schmid, foreign policy spokesman for Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD), echoed the criticism. “The solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires that the legitimate concerns of all involved, including a Palestinian state, are considered,” Schmid said.

He stressed that the idea that Palestinians would give up their hopes for statehood in exchange for money was doomed to fail. Kushner plans will therefore “not fly,” he concluded.

]]>http://webpublicapress.net/new-us-deal-of-the-century-for-palestine/feed/0Trade War With Chinahttp://webpublicapress.net/metzler-america-tariffs-trade-and-china/
http://webpublicapress.net/metzler-america-tariffs-trade-and-china/#commentsThu, 23 May 2019 16:45:52 +0000http://webpublicapress.net/?p=30947

By John J. Metzler - UNITED NATIONS — Amid the global gallop towards economic protectionism, there’s the political temptation to use tariffs which undeniably produce a feel good factor for politicians and polemists, but whose bottom line is paid by the consumers.

The current trade tensions between the United States and China has all the ingredients of a turgid political melodrama; massive U.S. trade deficits, lost industries and jobs, and Chinese technology theft.

The game is being played out on an uneven field; President Donald Trump has thrown down the Tariff gauntlet in a bid to negotiate a fairer trade deal with Beijing and to bring parity for American workers. In this volley, a 25 percent Tariff has been slapped on $200 billion of Chinese imports.

But tariffs, a levy on imports, remains just another tax. More precisely tariffs are taxes imposed on goods imported from a foreign country. Companies pay the tab upfront and then pass on the bill to customers.

The use and abuse of tariffs is nothing new. In the pre-WWII era the U.S. and most other countries used them to collect revenue. Indeed both political parties, Democrat and Republican, have variously embraced them as a political panacea to solve economic problems. Since the 1960’s American tariffs have dramatically declined to about 5 percent in 2016. Trade expansion and economic growth has followed.

Historically European countries such as France and Germany used tariffs to protect national industries and their workers. Throughout most of Europe, consumer costs remain higher precisely because of protecting local manufacturers.

Tariffs are wielded to protect industries and jobs, to punish economic predators, and to score political points. President Trump totally understands that a tough “tariff regime” would hinder strong economic growth and cause retaliation, but at the same time the use of tariffs remains a powerful tool to bring countries to the negotiating table. Many trade union members and blue collar Democrats back the Administration’s trade policies.

The proverbial cheap Chinese imports have created lower prices for American consumers. Conversely they have decimated U.S. industries. Larry Kudlow, the president’s Chief economic advisor concedes that by slapping a 25 percent tariff on Chinese products “both sides will suffer.”

An Oxford Economics forecast estimates the tariff increase could cost up to $800 per household.

Yes, but here’s another part of the larger picture. If Walmart were a country it would be one of the world’s largest trading powers! But while offering American consumers far lower prices, such stores massively fuel the China trade deficit. According to some estimates, the Walmart trade deficit with China has eliminated or displaced over 400,000 U.S. jobs between 2001 and 2013.

From bicycles to clothing to even the humble mousetrap, China’s factory to the world has pushed American producers aside. For example China was the source of 94 percent of bicycles imported into the U.S. in 2017! A Wall Street Journal article underscores that even niche American bicycle manufacturers are dependent on Chinese parts and thus still will be affected by tariffs.

A strong U.S. economy with powerful job creation and record low unemployment has allowed the President to go head to head with Beijing on trade.

What are the numbers? Consider for a moment the U.S. trade deficit with the People’s Republic of China; in 1988 it was $3.5 billion, by 1998 $57 billion, in 2008 it climbed to $268 billion, and in 2018 it surged to $419 billion!

While the American Chamber of Commerce in China touts the line that U.S. exports to China at $120 billion have never been higher ( happily true), there’s nonetheless a widening trade gap where China’s exports to the USA also have never been higher.

But beyond deficits, American jobs especially in key industries such as aluminum and steel have taken serious losses, until now. Tragically now the American farmer is taking the brunt when it comes to agricultural exports to China.

Significantly the President has cancelled aluminum and steel tariffs on Canada. This is part of Washington’s overdue compromise to pass the renewed and updated version of the NAFTA trade deal comprising Canada, Mexico and the United States. The U.S. should equally lift its tariff threat on trade partners South Korea, Japan and Germany.

Now both Washington and Beijing must work overtime to solve the trade impasse lest uncertainty and a blame game become part of a vicious cycle. The Trump Administration’s entrenched rivalry with Beijing over Trade, the South China Sea, and Taiwan forebodes a dangerous trajectory towards potential conflicts. So what then remains the ultimate endgame?

John J. Metzler is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He is the author of Divided Dynamism the Diplomacy of Separated Nations: Germany, Korea, China (2014).

By Keno Verseck - During his visit to the White House, Hungary’s prime minister received a lot of compliments. But the US president’s positive opinion of Orban is not shared by his administration, comments Keno Verseck.No other EU head of government has courted US President Donald Trump like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. During Trump’s election campaign, Orban openly sided with the US billionaire. And he was one of the first EU heads of government to congratulate him, almost euphorically, on his election in November 2016. Since then he has repeatedly highlighted his similarities with Trump, be it on the issue of migration, or the fact that both are fighting the establishment and “political correctness.”

In fact, hardly any European politician is as close to Trump as Orban. Still, Hungary’s prime minister had to wait two and a half years for a bilateral meeting with the US president. On Monday that day had arrived and Trump received Orban at the White House for just over an hour. The timing of the meeting was almost a humiliation. With the exception of Bulgaria, Trump has already received or visited all other eastern European EU member heads of state or government. Hungary’s prime minister had to settle for last place.

Words of praise and some conflicts of interest

Then again, Orban got to hear a cascade of praise from the US president. Trump said it was a great honor to receive Orban, that the Hungarian prime minister was doing a “good job,” that he has kept his country safe and was therefore “highly respected throughout Europe.” “Probably, like me, a little bit controversial, but that’s okay. That’s okay,” the president said.

Keno Verseck writes about East Central Europe for German media

Trump would probably have met Orban much sooner if it had been merely a matter of personal sympathy — he has a soft spot for authoritarian leaders. But it is not only the Democrats, Trump’s opponents, who are hostile to Orban. Trump’s government and his Republicans party are also divided about Hungary’s prime minister. This can be seen in the fact that prominent Hungarian opposition politician Peter Marki-Zay was received at the US State Department on the same day. There are also considerable conflicts of interest between the US and Hungary.

Many Republicans have an extremely critical view of Hungary’s anti-democratic transformation since 2010, under Orban. Hungary’s quasi expulsion of the Central European University, founded by stock market billionaire George Soros, is widely perceived in Washington as an attack on a US institution. Hungary’s rapprochement with Russia and China and its economic cooperation with both major powers run counter to the interests of the US. In recent years, Hungary and the US have had occasional disagreements, for example at the end of 2018 when Hungary handed over two Russian arms dealers, wanted by the US, to Russia. Another issue has been Hungary’s blocking of any cooperation between NATO and the Ukraine as a reaction to Ukraine’s law on languages, which affects the rights of the Hungarian-speaking minority in Ukraine.

Despite this, Trump’s government seems determined to make a fresh start with Hungary. Unlike under Obama, the current US administration is guided by a principle that foreign policy experts and geopoliticians refer to as “transactional diplomacy.” In Orban’s case this could mean that Hungary is going to buy US weapons worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.

However, the bottom line of the meeting between Trump and Orban is something different: In Hungary, Orban governs almost without restrictions. He has seriously damaged his country’s democracy for many years, if not decades to come. America’s democracy, on the other hand, seems to be able to withstand even a president like Trump. He may dream of achieving Orban’s hold on power and unrestricted domestic political options. But he won’t get them. (Source DW)

]]>http://webpublicapress.net/trumps-lonely-dream-of-viktor-orban-like-power/feed/0More Than Just a Tradehttp://webpublicapress.net/us-china-threat-more-than-just-about-trade/
http://webpublicapress.net/us-china-threat-more-than-just-about-trade/#commentsMon, 06 May 2019 16:05:12 +0000http://webpublicapress.net/?p=30843

By Ashutosh Pandey (DW) Berlin – The US president has threatened to expand tariffs against China, putting a trade deal in doubt. Is this an effort to gain more leverage in a potential final lap of trade talks or a reflection of genuine lack of progress?

US President Donald Trump threatened on Sunday to ramp up tariffs on Chinese imports, citing the slow pace of trade talks with Beijing.

The tweets caught off guard Chinese officials who worked through the long weekend to prepare for a crucial round of negotiations in Washington aimed at ending a trade war between the world’s largest economies.

“The threat to increase tariffs is a reminder that the trade negotiations have a high degree of uncertainty,” Max Zenglein, head of the economics program at Berlin-based Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) told DW. “The underlying issue is an increasing rivalry between the US and China which goes far beyond the trade deficit.”

The US and China have been locked in negotiations since Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping agreed to a ceasefire in their bitter trade war after the G20 summit in Argentina in December.

“I can see two possible goals Trump is trying to achieve with these latest threats. First, focused on US domestic audiences, he wants to appear to be “tough” on China and to maintain his image among domestic constituencies as a trade warrior fighting on behalf of the US,” Geoffrey Gertz, a fellow at Brookings Institution, told DW.

“Second, he and his advisers may be hoping this will increase pressure on China and convince them to agree to a deal; however, this may backfire, as Chinese negotiators need to be responsive to China’s domestic politics as well, and it will be difficult for them to appear to be bowing to foreign pressure.”

China unfazed by Trump tariff tweet

Pressure tactic or genuine roadblock?

The timing of Trump’s threat triggered speculations that it was aimed at creating pressure on Beijing ahead of the talks in Washington.

Chinese government officials said in Beijing Trump’s tweets were in conflict with the progress made to date in the trade negotiations.

“So at least one party to the negotiations seems to view this as an attempt at creating leverage,” Doug Barry of the US-China Business Council told DW.

US negotiators are reported to have become frustrated by China’s attempts to backpedal on earlier commitments made over the deal, including one related to forcing foreign companies to share their technology. The other sticking points are how to enforce an eventual deal and the fate of the existing US tariffs on Chinese goods that Beijing wants removed.

State intervention shields the Chinese economy from trade war fallout

Expanding tariffs to hurt US consumers, companies

US business groups have warned against raising tariffs and escalating trade tensions.

“We urge the President to refrain from imposing these additional tariffs and instead focus on negotiating and concluding the trade deal with China,” said Rick Helfenbein, president and CEO of the American Apparel & Footwear Association. “These taxes are not paid by foreign nations and they result in higher costs that are simply passed on to the American consumer.”

US companies operating in China are said to be reviewing contingency plans developed in anticipation of tariffs increasing in December.

“I think the disruption to the world economy and the financial markets is far more costly than any gains the US will achieve in trade relations with China,” Gary Hufbauer from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told DW.

Analysts say they do not see Trump following through on his threat of imposing new tariffs on the $325 billion worth of Chinese imports not yet taxed.

“There would be more substantial effects on consumer goods, which make up the majority of the remaining imports from China not yet affected by new tariffs. We expect the White House would seek to avoid this,” Goldman Sachs analysts Alec Phillips and Blake Taylor said in a note to clients.

Also, to keep US retail prices in check, the Trump administration has so far targeted goods for which China has a relatively low global market share.

“It will be more challenging to shift to alternative suppliers for the remaining goods, implying a smaller decline in Chinese exports,” Julian Evans-Pritchard, a China economist at Capital Economics, said.

Deal or no deal?

China has confirmed that a delegation will travel to Washington to take part in the talks starting Wednesday. Beijing, however, did not clarify if Chinese Vice Premier Liu He would be part of the delegation, as initially planned.

Liu could still travel for trade talks but shorten his trip or cancel it altogether, South China Morning Post reported on Monday.

“I doubt the Chinese will make the big concessions the US has been seeking (such as on eliminating state subsidies for key industries) – not because of any failures of the US negotiating team, but simply because the Chinese view these policies as central to their economic model, and are unwilling to give them up,” Gertz said.

“I still think that eventually, we will see a deal that results in relatively minor changes to the US-China economic relationship,” Gertz said. “Where China will agree to more purchases of US agricultural output and maybe a few other small concessions, and the US will agree to drop some punitive tariffs, bringing us more or less back to where we were in 2016.” (Deutsche Welle)

(WEBPUBLICAPRESS) – NEW YORK – Speaking to the powerful gun lobby, the US president praised “the eternal defense of our liberty.” He used his speech to attack enemies while announcing a withdrawal from a UN arms treaty, DW (Deutsche Welle)reported quoting other news sources.

US President Donald Trump was greeted with cheers as he took the stage at the annual convention of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Indianapolis, Indiana on Friday. He is the first president to speak to the influential lobbying group for three years in a row.

‘We will live by American laws’

The biggest news to come from the speech was accompanied by sometimes barely intelligible comments and a bit of showmanship when Trump signed a letter to the Senate calling on them to return a UN arms treaty to the White House so that he could withdraw the US from it.

The UN Arms Trade Treaty, which regulates the $70 billion global conventional arms business, was signed by Barack Obama in 2013, but was never ratified. Trump said, “We will live by American laws, not the laws of foreign countries.”

The United Nations called the Arms Trade Treaty that Trump wants to exit “a landmark achievement in the efforts to ensure responsibility in international arms transfers.”

The agreement is the first legally binding treaty to regulate the international trade in conventional arms. It has been ratified by 101 countries.

Gun violence in US and still no better laws

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the treaty “is the only global instrument aimed at improving transparency and accountability in the international arms trade.”

“This is particularly important in present times, when we witness growing international tensions and renewed interest in expanding and modernizing arsenals,” he said.

‘Get ready to vote’

The president repeated many of his standard claims in what was clearly a campaign speech, and implored attendees to “get ready to vote.” Although the emphasis was on guns and the Second Amendment, he also lauded the economy and tax cuts.

Trump stressed his support for the right of citizens to bear arms, while ominously echoing the gun group’s dire warning that gun owners are facing an unprecedented threat from radical left-wing Democrats intent on taking away their guns and their freedom, saying, “Far-left radicals want to take away your voice, your rights, and your guns.”

The majority of his address was spent on the attack. He called Democrats ”obsessed” and “maniacs,” claiming they had attempted to orchestrate a government overthrow. But he also went after “activist judges,” calling them “one of the greatest threats to freedom.”

Immigration and fear of asylum-seekers also figured largely in the speech, with the president vilifying “criminal aliens” and bashing asylum-seekers as fakes, telling the cheering crowd, “we’re throwing them the hell out.”

Trump railed against the press on several occasions during the speech as well, saying “the level of dishonesty and corruption in the media is unbelievable.” The crowd ate up such comments, booing loudly as he pointed and sneered at reporters.

March for Our Lives – uphill battle for stricter gun laws

Harrowing tales of people saved by assault rifles

The president used NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre’s dictum, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” to praise certain school districts for allowing teachers to carry guns in school.

He also invited three citizens to tell harrowing stories about how they had used guns — in two cases AR-15 assault rifles — to defend themselves and others.

Paris could have been prevented

Before the president wrapped up his speech with a long tale of brave Americans standing up against British tyranny, he spoke of the 2015 Paris terror attacks. Trump claimed that the attacks “probably wouldn’t have happened” if France had less strict gun laws.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recorded 39,773 gun deaths in the US in 2017 — 12 deaths per 100,000 people — the highest number in more than 20 years.